Instead of leaving a reference frame on the heads and tails, he/she decided the best thing to do would be to actually leave 4 or 5 frames of leader/tail black as well, thus this would have been projected on screen.

I'm not sure of their reasoning, but if this catches on, I'm going to take a course in vacuuming.

...and we wonder why they're pushing digital projection...

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Not every reel, mind you but most.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.
 

Since I am preserving the prints that I have in the collection, I try to repair all the splices at the end of the reels. Usually, all they need is new tape. The ends butt perfectly.

I've got several prints with no splices in the body of the reel, and 6-8 cuts at the head and tail.

I think that there are too many theaters out there that dont give a damn about the prints because after they use them, they're out of their hands.

LURKERS: People are having to fix your slack work! Technicolor sure wont do it!
 

You'd think that would be the case, but no...there seems to be no reason to it whatsoever.

One more thing, could they have chosen a worse scene to put those ugly black changeover cues than the one where there is a shot of a guy's head and very white background and whammo! there's the motor cue, then to another shot much darker then back to the original shot of the guy and whammo! there's the changeover cue.

Don't these guys think?

Perhaps Filmguard could be modified to remove unsightly cues from prints? One wipe and they're out with the wash!

What I've never understood is getting a print where the frames have been painstakingly taped back together (repertory prints). I'm talking a dozen or more. That would look like CRAP if it were allowed to be projected and would sound even worse. What's the resoning here?
 

"I made up our 'glorious' used print of "Pitch Black"... <snip> ..."4 or 5 frames of leader/tail black..."

Well, the previous projectionist was just giving patrons the "Pitch Black" they paid to see....

Actually, I leave 6 image frames on the head/tail leaders when I make up a show. The reason is I know most of our prints go to a few 2nd run houses after. And many have come back to us after even that. Also, any one of those reels could then be used as replacement reels even later. It is very difficult to get the tape off when it's been stuck on for several weeks- simply chopping off the frame is really the only practical thing to do. Usually a frame gets chopped off with each run. I can't stop that, but I can minimize the danger of misnumbered reels.

I do not want a print without at least one, never cut off, all-important ID frame to prove which reel is which. I am willing to lose 1/4 of a second to get that security.

And, my feeling is, it should not matter anyway. Everything after the c/o mark is "extra" and should not be needed. Now, I would never cut off all 24 frames after the c/o, but 6 should not matter. If you are running c/o's, you would stomp on that pedal long before anyone sees those frames. It's like people who think they are getting screwed because they are not getting to see the image under the 70mm mag striping- It was never meant to be shown anyway. It's just the "run-out" in case you were slow on the c/o button.

Yes, I know, "Lion King" had dialog right up to the c/o. But, that is a very rare occurrence- which happened because the editor made a mistake. I will gladly help correct the editor's mistake (and not chop off any frames for ID at all) if he leaves a note in the can. If he does not, I have to assume that making up this film will be no different than the thousands before it. Audio pull-ups should be (and usually are) taken care of by the editor in the same way. If he can't find a few seconds to allow a "clean" looking and sounding c/o or platter splice, then he's to blame for it.

I'm not an archivist. I'm not going to worry about chopping off too many frames because in 100 years this print might be the only copy left. That the print I received will survive 100 years from now is very small. Besides, that's the film's owners job. I can do more towards that end by handling the print properly and keeping the projector clean. I'm not insensitive to the future, it just that I need (and am payed for) to deal with the "here and now." To me, that means that with the limited staff we have (and most other theaters, I'm sure) previously run shows must go together quickly without questions. Leaving several uncut ID frames on the heads/tails is the only way for you prove which reel number is which.
 

That is insane. I'm sorry, but that is just too much! I would cut off just one ID frame if I felt the need to, and every theater that gets it after me can just cut one more off after that, leaving the ID frame and the frame spliced to it on the leader. When all is said and done, fewer than 6 frames would have been chopped off during the entire run of the print.

I still can't get over it. 6???????????
 

Also, leaving a single frame DOES audibly make a difference. I see this all the time where music and/or dialogue runs right through the reel change.

If you're really that incredibly worried about it, how about leaving ONE ID frame as most people do on the leaders, cutting the second frame off and splicing it within the countdown leader, and then starting your actual buildup on the third frame?
 

Thanks again for the info.

Scott
 

But I'm serious. About 23-30% of the features we get have been run, and many of those we had when new (we get them back for some reason.) And if you've ever been through the embarrassment of reels in the wrong order, it only takes once or twice for you to make GD, 100% sure it won't happen again. After 25 years, and literally making-up almost 1000 features, it's happened twice (once with the starring actress in the theater,) both times because there was no ID frame and I trusted what was written. If I left only one, the next theater operator has no problems cutting off the ID frame, because it's proven to _him_ that the reels are correct; he doesn't care about the next guy (me!)

Brad is right, a common sense thing is to cut off the other way, leaving the last frame. But, we don't have that quality of operators. Most of the operators in my area are ushers forced into the job. I will never trust that the previous operator marked the reels correctly. I know if I leave only one or two frames on the head/tail, they will be chopped off when/if I get that print back.

You all probably now think I'm the kind of guy that never cleans, throws the film on the floor, etc. I can't prove that one way or the other, but if you've read my previous posts here, you should'nt think I'm deranged!

I just made up "Shanghai Express" for a sneak tonight. We are also running, "Gladiator," "Road Trip," "Dinosaur," "Flintstones,"U-571, "One From the Heart," "Screwed," "Held Up," "Battlefield Earth," and "Basketball." Tell me where in any of those films removing up to 12 frames would ruin the continuity (worst case: six for me, six for crazy people who keep chopping.)

Or, tell me where I'm wrong techinally, about the way an editor should create reel beginnings/endings, pull-ups, etc.

Brad's idea about cutting off one frame and taping it on the leader is a good one. Gotta think seriously about that.

I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't want to do something that is really wrong. But my goal is: no wrong reels, _ever_. How can I get as close to that goal as possible?
 

I received a print of "Tango" which I played for a special audience last summer. I knew I was going to be playing it again for our regular movie season at Mercyhurst. I spent a lot of time making sure I broke it down JUST RIGHT so I'd have an easier time of it when I had to build it up again. I even made notes for myself where the splices, etc. were in the reels so I knew where to look when I was inspecting it again.

I knew that other people might play the print in the mean time but I didn't think they could foul it up THAT bad. Well, when I got the print back it WAS... THAT bad! The same print number. The same label that I put on the tail. It looked like a totally different print.

I have, on occasion, called up the people who had the print before me. 90% of the time these people have NO IDEA what they are doing is wrong. It doesn't pay to try and explain it to them. They are simply NON COMPUS MENTIS!

The only thing I can say is, "That's what I get paid to do."
 

Somebody asked if everyone's too lazy to peel tape. I'm not, but most of the tape that comes into my booth is the cheap crap that won't peel except in tiny little pieces. When I see that stuff, I trim that frame off.

Neumade tape is the best!

Mike
 

But if they printed the frame, why not project it?

We cut the heads and tails like this at make up. If they print it, we show it.

Granted, I am a first run house, but isn't the whole concept of leaving one frame on the leader a "moron check" for the next exhibitor?

Ours are broken down correctly. If you see head one, then you are holding reel one.

It amazes me at what lengths we will go to "idiot proof" our process just because we allow "idiots" to handle film.

I love film, but I will welcome digital projection.

You cannot choose who will handle a print before it arrives at your theatre. It doesn't matter "who" did "it"!! Your audience is who are seeing it. They are seeing it at your place.

I know of companies who re-attach leaders (heads and tails) with masking tape!! It is an accepted practice!

Um, I don't work there anymore.

We make up and break down prints in such a manner that Steve Guttag himself could project them reel to reel and never miss a cue!!

Sure, he'd whine about the splices, but he'd be proud of me!

The ident frame is un-necessary so long as the handlers are professional.

Kodak Guy!!? Comments!?

<g>

Russ

"Moron check". That's a pleasant and very accurate way of putting it.
 

As for cutting off 6 frames...that's just crazy (and how did you come to the conclusion that it was 6 frames that wouldn't matter if they weren't shown) you only need _1_ left attached to the heads / tails. Not 6, not 3, not 2... _1_. It's all very well to say >>It amazes me at what lengths we will go to "idiot proof" our process just because we allow "idiots" to handle film.<< but let's be real... we DO allow them to run some booths and just because you say that the leader of spool two is attached to spool two, wouldn't make me any more confident that that is in fact the case. If you got a second run print with no reference frames attached could you be 100% confident that all heads and tails were on the right spools? No, you can't be sure. With a reference frame you can be _100%_ sure that what it says it is is what it really is.

>>Granted, I am a first run house, but isn't the whole concept of leaving one frame on the leader a "moron check" for the next exhibitor?<<

I object to you using that term. Just because on a second or third run I would like to be confident my heads and tails were replaced correctly at the last theater. You make up an older film sometime without reference frames and see just how important your "Moron Check" was. It's a simple matter of courtesy.

Guys, think about the next guy and the one after that and the one after that. He's one of us too and don't you think he deserves the same amount of confidence in his print as you had when you first made it up new?

Let's face it, there are good operators and there are "not" good operators out there.
 

I'm starting to think you guys hate not leaving an ID frame "almost" as much as Steve Guttag hates platters.
 

As for the basic issue of the single check frame let me explain for the benefit of those who have never dealt with 2-projector changeover operation that while the goal would be to stay on the old reel right up to the last frame and enter the new reel right on the first frame the reality is that you exit several frames before that last frame and enter a few frames in to the new one. In theory that entire second after the changeover cue is available although a good operator changes much more tightly but the very first and last frames never get shown. And films are edited with this in mind.

I might add that one slim advantage of running a print with cut & spliced leaders is that it serves as check of how accurate our changeovers are. That is, we hear the head splice on the incoming reel go through the gate just an instant before changing to the new machine and the tail splice on the outgoing reel go through a split second after changing away from the old machine. Clickety click.

Anyway, although films are primarily edited on computer work stations as editing progresses usually a film workprint is cut and spliced to conform to what was done on the computer. This then gets projected interlocked with a temporary soundmix (usually spit out from the workstation, dubbed to mag, and synched with the cut work picture). This is because a film always plays differently on the big screen and must be projected to be judged. The point here is that movies are designed and judged by being run reel to reel with changeovers. So while I loath the loss of any footage--trust me, I spend a lot of time peeling old tape to save even one frame--the fact that single frames are left on the leaders and don't get shown when a film is platterized (by someone following this standard) is NOT to be equated with the other outrageous footage losses we've talked about. Those frames are not shown when the film is run reel to reel either which means they were not shown as the filmmakers watched their workprint being shown and judged their own editing. In that sense keeping them in the program not only eliminates the proof of identity I've discussed ad nauseum in the other thread but in some sense means that doing so is to run the film contrary to the filmmakers intent. Not that a couple extra frames will change things much but that's the point--the loss is designed into the print and it provides a great service to everyone down the line afterwords.
 

Brad replied: >>Yup, just by the condition of the print.<<

Come on...are you telling me that you 100% trust a print sans reference frame on the heads/tails _just_ because it looks like it was re-spliced by someone who gives a toss?

If that's true, you're just asking for this to happen to you.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow... but sometime soon and in front of a lot of people and it'll be just that one print you didn't get time to run through beforehand.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.
 

You're inferring that everyone should be up to your standard and you know that just isn't the case. This industry is now populated with all ages and levels of experience.

When a 17 year old 'part timer' is in the box and has to make up two prints on a Thursday night as well as run 15 projectors, is it really fair to him to say "read the soundtrack and look for the edge markings" or would it be that much more practical to say "Make sure the reference frames match what follows"?

It's not his fault he doesn't have the knowledge of the soundtrack reading skills but any nitwit could make sure the frames match up.

The days of having guys like you in every booth are long gone and that's sad, but it is a fact. This is one small, insignificant way to make it easier for all and sundry.

Think of the next guy when you build up that new print...leave a reference frame.

*My prints always get broken down properly. Period.

*I will not be responsible for any theater that decides to hire an idiot who is untrained and does not care. If a theater gets a print with or without ID frames and the person building it up on reels or a platter is an idiot, untrained, does not care, or has some other mental defect, reels will still be assembled out of order. Theaters get what they pay for...and when it comes to being cheap, they deserve what they get. Any professional projectionist can easily read the optical track and edge marks.

*I will never leave a reference frame on...ever! Please quit asking. Everyone has that one thing they believe in 100% and will never budge on, this is mine.

Feel free to beg the rest of the world to leave an ID frame on, but it's not going to happen on any print I run so please direct any further "ID-cutter" requests toward someone else. If the studios really wanted an id frame on the leaders, they would print it somewhere in the countdown.

I would hope others restrict themselves to a MAXIMUM of ONE and ONLY ONE identification frame. Any more is butchering the print any way you slice it. Personally, I feel leaving a frame on the leaders is butchering enough, but 2 or more is simply unacceptable.

I was taught by my father who I did and always will consider to have been a professional projectionist.

>>Everyone has that one thing they believe in 100% and will never budge on, this is mine.<<

Happy news...it's mine too!

I inspected a print last night of a 10 year old slasher film that is on reels and in the original shipping cases. All of the heads and tails were perfectly tape spliced. I suspected that something was wrong when R1 started ABRUPTLY with no logo, rating, etc. You know what I found.

Turns out that 5 of 6 reels were just thrown back together and tossed into the can. I'd call the theater on the return label and curse, but it's a little late, eh?

Leave a damn frame! Enough bitching allready! Give the next guy a screaming chance to get the thing right on the screen the first time!

 

I have to work with unwilling and untrained people. I have to draw "Dick and Jane"-like pictures to get them to understand (thank God there are only 2 ratios to explain!) We get used prints, many of which we had when new. Brad is right; you get what you pay for, and we don't pay very much. So, in the end, a "head projectionist" has to make a decision on how to do something that works out the best, based on what (and whom) he's got to work with. I choose to spend the limited time I have training people on other things (like cleaning and threading) that I think will provide a larger gain.

Hey, if it was just me, I'd leave only one ID frame, but it's not. 6 frames almost guarantees there will be at least one ID frame left for someone later, regardless of how many fools had it in the meantime. And that 'someone' may well be an inexperienced usher at my theater.

My understanding is anything after the 2nd c/o mark is 'extra.' Also, that the industry has changed the audio (pull-ups) from c/o use (where the extra 18 frames for the audio to reach the soundhead) to platter use. The same concept is true for the incomming reel. If there is anything important closer than that to the splice, the editor made a mistake. A note should be left in the can, and I won't cut any ID frames at all.

If Mo Henry calls and tells me I'm wrong, I'll change. Until then.....
 

If the next bozo builds a print of mine, generally he will cut one frame over thus leaving an ID frame. If he does not and can not properly break a print down, it is he you should turn your attention to, not the first theater that played the flick. ID frames from the first theater have nothing to do with your senario.

Guys,

If you ever get a print without an ID frame and you know you have at least one person in your booth who might break that print down who is lacking in training or missing part of his brain, then leave that original/first frame on the leaders when it is built up! There's your damned ID frame. If you guys are staffed with PROFESSIONALS, then preserve it and peel the tape leaving no ID frames. (I wonder, are these people who are complaining the same people who let the leader hit the floor while threading?)

Contrary to popular belief, there IS important action and audio after that last changeover mark.

Geez guys, get over it. The arguments here for leaving an ID frame on the leaders is about as big of a problem as receiving a print with a reel wound tails up. "Oh shit, this reel isn't heads up, we have no idea how to fix it! We're going to have a dark screen! WAAAAAAAAH!"

When I was first taught to build up film, I was told to chop off 4 frames. Shortly after that "The Crow" came out and I watched it at another theater. During some of the reel changes the action freezed. I figured that was probably because whoever built it up did not cut off enough ID frames and the frames repeated. I rented that same movie on LaserDisc later and it did the exact same thing. I counted the "freeze frames" on the disc and they matched the film exactly, if you counted the single ID frame that somebody cut off. Moral of the story? I don't want to give my audience a frame less than they can get on home video. Theaters are supposed to be better than VHS in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT!
 

Anyhow, you still haven't answered this question Brad, someone mentioned that when movies are edited, they check their work using a changeover system. This means the last frame is NEVER seen when the editors are checking their work. Does this mean the sound is not mixed and the movie edited with this in mind? Would it not mean that leaving that one frame out is actually a service to the studios?

I do not know a lot about these things, but from what I've read I'm inclined to believe the above.
 

I was discussing your position this morning with an editor who flew in with an unmarried print especially regarding how the very first and last few frames of each reel never get shown to the most important audiences (the filmmakers, studio execs, most critics, the ratings board, etc.) because they run reel to reel with changovers. He said that he once suggested that there be two types of prints: those for platters and those for changeover operation, with slightly different editing and no dots on the platter version. But that's a subject for another discussion. In the meantime movies continue to be cut for changeover operation. So your staunch point about showing every single frame really serves no purpose.
 

All I know is when I used to cut one frame off the end of each reel, there would be a noticable jump or cut in the sound (even when playing in digital) at the reel changes. With all frames intact, the sound glides through perfectly. I can live with people cutting off 1 ID frame, but there really isn't any reason to cut off more than that. If somebody else down the road cuts that frame off (I don't know why they would) then it is their problem, not the person who originally only cut 1 ID frame off.

I wonder what the film editors think about cutting ID frames off. Steve's post didn't go into that.

No I will NOT leave your precious id frame on. It is STILL butchering the print.

You guys are REALLY wasting your time. There is absolutely nothing you can say to make me alter my practices. I repeat NOTHING. You do it the way you want and I will do it the way I want. Steven Spielberg can come into the booth and ask me to cut off an ID frame when building and I will still look him straight in the face and say NO. Use your arguments on someone else or direct them to the masses via this thread. Instead of wasting my time responding to this thread which is going nowhere, why don't you take that time and teach an operator how to build without the id frames?

I think I've made my stance very clear on this issue. When a print I've played goes back to the depot, every single frame goes back TOGETHER without scratches, dirt or splices of any kind. Do I have to make a little web page showing how to assemble a print without ID frames for everyone who is complaining here to learn how to do it? I've honestly reached the point where I truly believe the guys arguing "for" chopping a frame to save as ID purposes really don't know how. How sad.

>Call me stupid here...

No, this is an open exchange of ideas and no one is calling anyone stupid.

>But if they printed the frame, why not project it? We cut the
>heads and tails like this at make up. If they print it, we
>show it.

I understand your philosophy: One would think that it is somehow a more perfect show to project every single frame. That cutting even one frame off, although an infinitesimal loss is still a loss and perfection requires every frame being there. That's your thinking, right? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Well, the point I have been making is that because films are still edited with changeovers in mind and those changeovers by their very nature skip over the very last few frames and the very first few on the new reel it would be difficult to make a case that cutting one off at each end represents any real loss at all. So leaving them in really doesn't make your presentation any more "perfect" and leaving one on each leader adds tremendously to everyone's peace of mind who encounters the print later on.

Brad's thinking is (and he will correct me if I'm wrong) that it represents a loss and he wants no loss, no matter how small and no matter what the benefit to others might be. Having performed many thousands of manual changeovers on thousands of films, both finished prints and editor's workprints or answer prints with interlocked mag soundtracks, some on ten minute reels, I can state flat out that 1 frame at each end represents zero loss. So there you have it: On the one hand the benefits that have been described at length by me and others. On the other hand zero true loss. Benefits vs. no loss. You decide.

>Granted, I am a first run house, but isn't the whole concept of
>leaving one frame on the leader a "moron check" for the next
>exhibitor?

Sort of. I'd call it protection AGAINST morons. Keep in mind that the moron who puts the leaders back on wrong is DONE with the film. It's the person after that who gets screwed. Call it a POST-MORON CHECK.

>Ours are broken down correctly. If you see head one, then you are holding reel one.

Um...ok. Please sign your work so I know that it's one of yours and I can rest easy. Oh, and please do so in a way so that I'll know if anyone had it AFTER you but BEFORE me because your diligence means nothing in that case because the in-between operator could have screwed it up and without the check frames I will have no way to know. Now do you see what we mean?

Maybe you and Brad could have some stickers printed up to use as holddowns that get broken when someone else gets your print. It could say "We solomnly swear that these leaders are on the correct reels."

>It amazes me at what lengths we will go to "idiot proof" our
>process just because we allow "idiots" to handle film.

Yes and no. Sure, this is primarily a protection against morons. But anyone can make a mistake in the wee hours and how wonderful to have a system that protects against that and does so at no cost or loss. The first person who thought to leave a frame on the leader ought to get an Academy Technical Oscar!

>You cannot choose who will handle a print before it arrives
>at your theatre.

>The ident frame is un-necessary so long as the handlers are
>professional.

But combine that thought with your prior line just above and you see why most of us think there IS a need for them. The fact is that you simply DON'T KNOW who had it before you. When you consider that they represent no real loss as I have explained then the argument against them seems vastly misplaced.

Steve
http://i.am/cinerama

 

hahahaha...now you really are being stubborn just for stubborn's sake. Our job--well mine anyway, I don't know about yours--is to present the film exactly as the filmmakers intend it to the extent possible. If the filmmaker contacted me and told me to roll reel 2A down to 345 ft 3 frames and cut out 22 ft 9 frames at that point I would do so. Not just Spielberg; any filmmaker. Because it's their film and they have that right.
 

And about your Crow example. What I meant by error in the copying is that if the film was edited with the intent that the last frame or two was not meant to be seen, and then whomever transfered the film to video included those frames, technicaly that would be an error. Anyway, if the action 'freezes' at the end of the reels, losing one frame on each end isn't going to make you miss this freeze.

For me it comes down to this-where we menat to see the frames or not.
 

You really need to get with our friend Mr. Guttag, for he is capable of presenting every single frame as Joe mentioned earlier on a changeover system. He has boasted this many times and frankly, he can probably do it! So in that aspect, you are saying he is doing his job improperly? P L E E E A S E!

Steve Kraus wrote:
"Having performed many thousands of manual changeovers on thousands of films, both finished prints and editor's workprints or answer prints with interlocked mag soundtracks, some on ten minute reels, I can state flat out that 1 frame at each end represents zero loss."

Steve, we are all indeed bowing to your great vast repertoire of changeover movies you have ran, but did you never run that little known film Terminator 2? Remember that changeover from reel 2 into 3? Your way ends up as Arnold saying "Knives and stabbing we/" to the doctor saying "/se pictures were taken..." What it SHOULD've gone like is: "Knives and stabbing weapons. These pictures were taken..." How do I know this? Simple. Because back then I DID cut off those damned frames and when I screened that movie, THAT is what I ended up with...and there was no way to ever put it back on!!! I ended up having EVERY SINGLE SHOW screwed up like that because of your precious ID frames. Ever since then I have refused to cut anything off. THAT is my reasoning because I know first hand what cutting frames does from that experience. Granted most changeovers will run perfectly smooth with a frame, or two or three missing off of the head and tail, but I don't know which ones are like that BEFOREHAND, thus they will remain on my print UNBUTCHERED!

There are tons of others like this too. What is the one musical Gordon is always mentioning where there is a changeover IN THE MIDDLE OF A SONG? I saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at another theater that chopped the ID frames off and there was a changeover during an action scene with music. Yeah Steve, it's just great how that music jumped out of sync by half a beat! If I thought about it for a little bit, I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other examples, but I'm getting very tired at wasting my time against you on this topic. You think you are right, but you are wrong. There is always that one changeover out of a hundred prints that is just waiting there for someone to go and cut a couple of frames off. Perhaps this is something you can live with as an occasional glitch in your presentation, but I happen to care a little bit too much for such nonsense and I will not tolerate it.

So don't ever tell me that those frames do not make a difference. Even if only one frame is cut on each end, that equals TWO, and that's enough to make an audible jump any way you slice it, digital or analog.

Please go take your whining to the labs and get them to print an ID frame in the leader...and if the Gods are listening, may you from this day forth always receive a print I have previously played on a platter. Sooner or later you will learn the tricks on how to assemble a print without any ID frames (or even entire leaders), and you will be a better projectionist for it.
 

In John Walsh's 05-20-2000 09:41 AM post, he says, "Brad's idea about cutting off one frame and taping it on the leader is a good one...." Huh? The point of an ID frame is that it is NOT cut off the head or tail nor is it spliced ("taped"?) to the head or tail. Rather, it is integral to and never separated from the leaders, those same leaders that state the reel number.

Later, John says in his 05-22-2000 09:51 AM post "... if it was just me, I'd leave only one ID frame, but it's not. 6 frames almost guarantees there will be at least one ID frame left for someone later...." Huh? The next guy is not going to cut a frame closer to the tail but rather closer to the body of the film. Why would he/she leave the 6th-frame splice on the body of the print during build-up? He/she is going to cut further into the print to avoid that splice for a cleaner transition.

With one ID frame, at worse (in the case of those tape splices that can't be untaped), a second frame INTO the print is cut off to avoid that first splice. At the next theater, at worse, a third frame is sacrificed for the sake of not having to untape the previous splice(s) and to avoid that tape splice being hear or seen.

John: all you are doing is giving the frame-removal process a 5-frame head start. What you think of as leaving 6 frames for others is in fact leaving behind frames that will never be projected now that you've placed a splice just before it. Or am I completely misunderstanding what you mean by leaving frames for others to use?

As someone who owns prints that have NEVER had their heads or tails cut, I dread the day that I will ever have to build them up (on reels or platters) and make those cuts. And to think about losing a frame each time the print is made up just makes me shiver.
 

When I worked in TV on 16mm prints, I rejected prints left and right. After awhile, the film distributors stopped sending me the rotton prints and started sending the new prints, or ones with few plays. Of course, we would receive prints up to 3 weeks before the playdates, and we would inspect the prints usually a week before the air date so there would be time for the replacement to show up.

This is impossible for the theaters.
I do feel for the operators that get these prints that have masking tape, shoe polish, and leaders tossed in the cans... The depots dont do anything anymore except give you a hard time about replacing things.

It's just not right that the theater is left holding the bag with a dark screen because of a shoddy print that was mis-handled by a previous theater.

If all theaters were the same, then all prints would be ready to go straight out of the cans. I know that in this day and time, this is impossible, due to the idiots being "trained" to operate the equipment.

Sure, Brad, Joe R., Ken L. Steve G, Ian P, and others do a whiz bang job on their prints. I would not hesitate to run a print that they have run straight out of the can, BUT 99% of the time, that won't be the case, so I HAVE to check them out by hand. I, too, can look at the soundtrack and see the difference in reels. Having a visual frame is added insurance that the reels will run in the proper order on the first run.

I am typing this after wearing the tips of both index fingers raw last night repairing damage in a single reel of a 1990 turtle movie for a total of FOUR hours. Unfortunatly, I am stuck with this because I cant just order a new print. You guys are lucky!

Bruce
 

That is the goal but it's rarely achieved and that's why editors take that into account. Yes, I know there is some lousy editing out there on some films.

As for Steve, does his claim apply to films run hundreds of times where one can tighten the changeover up considerably (and practically do without the dots)?

Steve: I will be in DC this Saturday. If you still work the Uptown booth on Saturday nights and want to show me the first and last frames of a test sample I will provide based on the dots alone I'll stop by.
 

Brad does not want any frames at all cut off. I think he was making a 'last-ditch' suggestion, but he would not do that way himself. I thought his idea was reasonable; the frame could almost never be lost and you'd only need one. But, again, you would have to trust that the previous guy did it right.

--------
-"The next guy is not going to cut a frame closer to the tail but rather closer to the body of the film."

You are using common sense, which is lacking in many projection rooms. I would do that, you would, but not some person who was hired on Monday and is left alone in the booth to make up a show on Wednesday. Prints come in cut either way, plus other weird, stupid, things. Most are (closer to the body of the film) but many are not. I even see tape that is more than 4 perfs wide; in that case, people will cut off two frames. We use the Nuemade tape and its not always easy to peel it off. Many people won't bother, anyway, and we get their print. The only rule is; there is no rule.

-"John: all you are doing is giving the frame-removal process a 5-frame head start."

I know what you mean, but I'm viewing it differently. I think I'm allowing frames on either side, so regardless of which way the leader is cut (closer to the tail or body) there will always be at least one all-important uncut ID frame, at least after 2-3 runs. It sounds bad to say, but I'm planning for future poor make-ups and break-downs.

-"And to think about losing a frame each time the print is made up just makes me shiver."

I just don't understand this; "can't loose even a single frame" idea. I mean, I'm not saying this like I'm better than everyone else (I'm not) or I'm smarter (God knows that's not true, either!) I can see where people think six is too many, but one?

<everything that follows can be treated as a rant, if you want>

My priority is that the reels are in the correct order. I need a simple 'catch-all' way to show even untrained people what to look for to insure that goal. No way would I ever have time to show people how to match the soundtrack, or other (how ever good) tricks. I can't make choices on the people that are hired, but I can decide what actions give me the best result for the time spent. I view it as: either a few frames are lost, or the reels may be out of order. And loss of a few frames is minor toward that goal.

As I have said, anything after the last c/o mark is 'run-out' (24 frames.) It's slop purposely placed there to make a clean looking and sounding c/o. If you were running c/o's, I bet there's less than a 1/2 second delay between the last mark and stomping on the pedal. But, let's say it's 1/2 second. That 'looses' 12 (image) frames from the end of a reel (outgoing.) The audio is ahead 18 frames. Therefore, 6 (audio) frames are also lost. If the incomming projector could be perfectly matched to the outgoing, it would be the same, only reversed.

When run on a platter, I cut six frames. Now, when the last c/o mark is shown (last important image frame), the last 'important' audio frame (18 frames ahead) is heard. Then, there are 18 frames of the next reels audio while the last of the previous reels image runs out.

I know what you are thinking; Ha! If the next guy cuts off a 7th frame (toward the body of the film), there goes the audio. You are right, but that guy could go the other way. I want one frame left despite his direction. I'm willing to loose a few (even important) frames towards that.

When some yo-yo gets my print, he can peel off the tape because I only put it on one side to save a frame. I know 'reel-people' don't like this, but with the vast majority of theaters running platters, it seems the prudent thing to do. Yet I still get prints back with that one-sided splice- they didn't even bother to unpeel it.

And I need the editor to do his job, and not cut it so close, or to place a note in the can saying so. You could tell me one hundred places in the past where the image or audio was too close to the reel end or beginning, and I would not change based on that alone. Tens of thousands of films have come out in the same time period, done correctly. I don't have time to train someone to watch out for something that; a) shouldn't have happened at all, and; b) happens less than 1% of the time.

No one has yet said anything techinal that disproves my reasoning. If you can, please do!

I'm tired from typing. Bartender! Another beer, quickly!
 

As for dailies, Mark all that fresh mountain air is getting to you. The editors don't put cue marks on dailies rolls! You run until you see it go to leader, roll, and change right over. Let me send you a bag of smog so you will regain your faculties!

PS: Just did a 6-track unmarried workprint and they showed up with the film a mere 20 min before showtime. Had to do the noise & tone while still onscreen with the prior film. Nice, eh?

 

I guess it's also been awhile since I've worked at an AMC, so I forget how many morons are out there running a booth, and that's a damn shame. And it's a shame that there are those of you who are idiot proofing your prints for those who have trouble. Of course, I also have to agree with that POST MORON proofing that was mentioned several posts ago too. So it seems there are idiots among us in the projection world. Maybe going to video projection will be the best thing. I'm sure that if the retards that are out there in the world can return a tape to a Blockbuster without incident, we'll all fare just fine.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.
 

Technicolor has "scans" of each reel's beginning and ending frame and they keep them on file just for the purpose. They will fax them to you if you ask nicely enough. If you don't have a fax they might even give you a verbal description of each ID frame over the phone.

I just got our print of "Princess Mononoke" today and EVERY SINGLE REEL had the wrong heads and tails. Some of them even had the ID frames MISSING. Even WITH Technicolor's help it took me almost THREE HOURS to build it up!

When this kind of junk happens to me I start having these little fantasies about what I'd like to do the the jackass who did this! Right now, I think I'd like to take this print back to the guy and chain him to the make-up table and tell him that if he doesn't get this print built up and on screen in an hour and a half I'm going to bull-whip him to death. (AKA: Clint Eastwood in "High Plains Drifter" --- "...WHO ARE YOU!!!!!!....")
 

Randy, that's good to know but the problem with that is the same one regarding comparing the sound on a head leader with the "pullup" on the tail of the prior reel which is that it's something you would do only if you have a problem like detached leaders with no ID frames OR otherwise have some reason to suspect an error. These other methods are fine for straightening things out when you know there is a problem but it's when you don't suspect an error that you're most at risk. The beauty of the ID frame is that practically jumps out at you when there is an error.
 

That's not a bad compromise. If everyone was to ONLY cut ONE frame off of the head of the reels EXCEPT for reels 1 and 6, that's enough to make even our new friend Steve Krams happy!

Really, there is no need for an ID frame on the first or last reel as well as on the tails. (It would be more helpful to have the ID frame on the head and not the tail for breakdown and loading purposes. Plus preserving the frames on the tails wouldn't chew up the changeover timing.) Damn good idea!!

Another very inexpensive solution would be for the studios to insert a black and white photocopy of a "breakdown sheet" in the cans with each film, just like with DTS discs. On it would be nothing more than shots of the ID frames and their corresponding reel numbers.

No ID frames taken off of first and last reels.
No ID frames taken off of secnod reel.
Middle reels only have ID frame on head.

So, this way on a 6 reel movie, you only lose 3 frames. The first and last reels as stated before are obvious by title/credits. Now we can pick one more reel to not leave ID's on the leaders, since by process of elimination we could determine which one it was. The rest of the reels will have that one ID, telling you for sure which reel it is.
 

The best idea to come out of this discussion is to splice a "reference frame" into the body of the leader. I believe this would be done by the film editor/negative cutter, and not the laboratory. It's worth re-introducing at the SMPTE Projection (P3) and Lab Practices (L6) committees. There also was once an attempt to have a SMPTE Recommended Practice to write the film title and reel number on the edge of the sound negative about 10 feet (3 metres) into the body of each reel, and print it through with the printer edgelight. Unfortunately, this is impractical today, because SDDS occupies that area of the print.

FWIW, the discoloration sometimes seen in the first frame of picture may be due to changing the printer lights (color balance) between the TAPE setting needed for the leader, and that for the first scene. If the color change cue is at the splice, the printer may take a frame to actually change the color balance to the correct one for the scene. Obviously, if the first/last frame is off-color, it should not be shown.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

I'm laughing a bit, because (although it sounds harsh), that is _exactly_ what I am doing.

While printing a reference frame in the leader is a good idea, how long would it take to get it through P3 and L6 committees (rhetorical question)? And studios haven't exactly shown a big interest in helping theaters (I will mention one thing: "ELR's.") So, who says they would change? In fact, with studios pushing e-projection, maybe it would be in their best interest not to help too much. I know I sound like Mr. Cranky, but I really feel theaters need help with hundreds of little things like this *now* and are not getting it.

-"There also was once an attempt to have a SMPTE Recommended Practice to write the film title and reel number <snip> Unfortunately, this is impractical today, because SDDS occupies that area of the print."

Could they simply do something like draw, say, 3 slashes (for reel 3) about 2 feet in on the print, in between the sprocket holes on the non-soundtrack side? There's nothing there. It could be done at both ends (the emulsion would tell you if it's the head of 3 or tails.)

John P: Is there a written guideline anywhere for editors or negitive cutters for creating a changeover, including how the audio (pull-ups) are done? Or, it it just one of those things one guy shows another, and is never really written down?
 

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Do the books give details, or it is a cursory kind of explaination? You know what I mean: I'm hoping for some exact description of what "happens" at the c/o, and how to deal with specific cases.

Thanks!
 

As most of you know, Dolby now prints a Dolby "Double D" trademark at the center of the Dolby Digital data matrix between each perforation. It may be possible to program the Dolby sound camera to expose a tiny reel number at some repeat interval (e.g., once every 24 frames). That way, any print with Dolby Digital track could be viewed under a magnifier, and the reel number would be printed in every 96th perforation (24 frames X 4 perfs = 96). (You'll still have 95 perfs that have the Dolby trademark).

I'll check with Ioan Allen of Dolby to see if this is feasible. Perhaps one of the Dolby participants in Film-Tech Forum could let us know if this might work? Can I be listed as inventor in the Dolby patent?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

Actually, I've never seen how the Dolby image gets printed. Is the camera controlled by a regular PC? (Easier to re-program to insert reel numbers) or is it a dedicated device, with it's own electronics (harder to re-program.) What is the source (I'm guessing there's only one digital source, which is simply copied to the analog track normally.)

Good idea, though. Every reel gets it's number, and it uses equipment that's already in place.
 

Otherwise, let's just ban the use of SDDS and go back to placing the writing on the edges again.
 

The only drawback to this that I can think of is that it would still just be something someone would check when there is a question and not be blatantly obvious like the cutoff ID frame. If there was to be a new laboratory standard then printing a check frame into the leader would be the way to go. The SMTPE leader already accomodates them as they could be placed at the CF location.

Steve, so long as YOU have a guaranteed and easy method (not having to read an optical track) for positively identifying frames, I would think you would be happy.
 

Just as it may be possible for Dolby to encode a reel number where they print their trademark "Double D" in the Dolby Digital data, perhaps SDDS could do likewise in their track bits. I'll check with Al Barton or Dan Taylor at Sony to see if it's feasible.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

That idea of printing the reel number in the SRD area "OPPOSITE" the actual SRD track (between the sprockets) is sounding better and better.

 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Whatever way we come up with, we should probably call it; "The Wilson Method." Poor John W. probably thought he would start a simple post...and the next thing he knows, there are flames next to his subject title....
 

If this thread doesn't stop pretty soon, it will become more popular than the CAP code debates.
 

Oops, how silly of me! That's what they do now!

Perhaps some instructions printed in the leader will help: THE FIRST AND LAST FRAME OF THIS REEL ARE INCLUDED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES. IN THE EVENT LEADERS ARE TO BE REMOVED PLEASE CUT AT THE DOTTED LINE. OK, the dotted line (scratched into the interneg) would be a new idea.

And maybe through this whole business the word would filter back to the editors and the assistant editors who balance the reels (e.g. determine where the reel breaks go) not to cut things so closely that this is ever an issue. Most do, but there are numerous examples where they don't.

<sigh> I really gotta write that oft-threatened article for the ACE house organ ("American Cinemeditor") listing all the things editors and negative cutters do wrong. Hey, those run-in/run-out sections are supposed to be BLACK folks! Not that I show them but if worse comes to worse I'd rather show black than the funky colors we often see.
 

Brad. I know by now that no amount of arguing is going to change your mind on reference frames. But I don't care if you attach a free bottle of Film Guard to the end of each reel...if I get a used print from you or anybody else that has no reference frames, I don't rest easy until that movie has screened successfully.

Second, there's the time factor. Not everyone gets their film the day before. We play most movies here about 3-4 weeks after the break, and I'm always bugging my booker to get those films booked here ASAP. This results in some very tight circuits. Sometimes my film does not arrive until Friday afternoon! I have a day job, and don't get off work until 6:00; that means I have 45 minutes at best to get from the job to the theatre and build that film. Those reference frames are a real time saver when you're building a film under time pressure.

Now about your T2 print that started you on this no-reference-frames policy. I have a hard time believing your statement about those cut-off words. You say that the line should have been "Knives and stabbing weapons. These pictures were taken..." and that the end of 'weapons' and beginning of 'These' were cut out when you left reference frames. I'm not trying to doubt your expertise, but you just can't convince me that they could fit the ending of a word, a pause between sentences, and the beginning of another word into ONLY TWO FRAMES. We're talking 1/12 of a second here. The sound in two frames is nothing more than a quick "blip", there's no way Ah-nuld could have been speaking that fast. (To be fair, however, I've not seen T2 in a loooooooong time, so next time I happen on a video of it I'm going to watch for that section.) If that did happen, it had to be bad sound editing, I'd think.

Arguing: The great American pastime. I haven't had this much fun since the Technicolor screw-ups thread.

 

Steve Kraus wrote:
we could simply have filmmakers leave an extra frame at each end of the reel, contiguous with the existing first and last shot, thus eliminating a lot of awkward extra negative cutting. Oops, how silly of me! That's what they do now!"

Hey Steve...GET OVER IT!

Allright everyone, I'm going to personally take a shot at solving this ridiculous argument in an attempt to shut our new friend Steve Kraus up. Give me a few weeks and let me see if my idea will fly. (I'm not going to say what it is right now.)
 

------------------
The man with the magic hands.
 

My last response to you was written in anger, hence the "directness" of my response. You will note the use of "smileys" people use when they are engaging in friendly discussions, and my obvious lack of one in my last post. Your lack of using these, or even other internet expressions such as <g> tells me you are taking this topic a bit too seriously and are not speaking in a sarcastic and joking tone. This is not a matter of you discussing various techniques and ideas (which are ALWAYS welcome), but your blatantly telling everyone like myself who does NOT chop off frames from a movie that we are "doing it wrong." I know I am not the only person who is insulted by your posts, as there has been talk between other operators who will not even read this thread anymore due to your attacks. I have also received 3 offended emails and now you can add a fourth direct complaint from Curtis who decided to speak publicly.

Perhaps you feel the need to force your vast experience upon everyone else here so we may all get on our knees and bow to your greatness? You are indeed the only person who has ever actually thrown a fit over being labeled a mere "film handler". Yes your resume that you forwarded to me immediately after your registration insisting that you be flagged "Master Film Handler" was impressive, but you seem to me to be looking for an argument and have a real fear of anyone not respecting you.

The bottom line here is that such posts are highly insulting to myself as well as others that follow this practice and I am now insisting that you find a more suitable way of making your point in the future.

John Pytlak has in his continual good nature proposed the SRD identification idea to Dolby already and I am working on another possible solution. Now please give it a rest for awhile. There are many other topics here for you to engage in discussions. Certainly there is something else of interest on the forum to you.

I am closing this thread before it becomes more abusive. When John Pytlak gets an answer from the fine folks at Dolby, he can simply start a new thread. Likewise, if my idea will work, I will start a new thread. Other than that, I don't think there is anything else that can be added to this thread that hasn't been pointed out by someone already. I appreciate your understanding.